Thursday, May 25, 2017

No Clear Thinking Among "Climate" Scientists

I have submitted the following comment to a post about the "global warming pause" on Dr. Roy Spencer's site (the link may not work, if Dr. Spencer did not allow it to appear):"...when the next big warm El Nino occurs, the zero trend will end. And that’s exactly what happened, with the 2015-16 El Nino. A trend is very sensitive to what happens at the end of a time series, and a big (natural) warm blip from El Nino is just what the doctor ordered. No more zero trend."Yet,"You can’t build a case for human-caused warming by relying on natural warming!"Dr. Spencer thinks the mere appearance of an El Nino ends the zero trend; but, generally speaking, that would depend upon what the temperature does after the end of the El Nino. If it goes right back to the "zero trend" level, then the zero trend continues; the El Nino is then just a bump in the road, soon enough forgotten. And as others have pointed out, the 2015-16 El Nino did not cause temperature to go higher than the 1998 one did (which is comparing "oranges to oranges", i.e. the maximum temperature at successive El Ninos, not the rise of a given El Nino compared to the trend preceding it, or succeeding it for that matter).And "you can't build a case for human-caused warming by relying on natural warming" logically implies you can't build a case (for human-caused warming from observation of the "end of the zero trend") by relying on the temporary natural warming due to an El Nino.So the two quotes of Dr. Spencer's above are at odds with one another. The first should be recognized as generally not true (unless the world does not recover from the El Nino; and though I stopped following the temperature reports, I don't believe the current 0.27 C anomaly reported here is significantly above the "zero trend" level of recent years, as the 0.8+ of the El Nino surely was, but it's obviously now gone).Just stop saying the zero trend, or "global warming pause", is over.

6 comments:

Harry, if you look at the UAH temperature data from Roy's website you will see no change in average temperatures from 1979 to 1997 and 2000 to 2015. The 1998 El Nino jumped the average temp by 0.3 degC and that is the only temperature increase in the record. This shows there was no Global Warming (no gradual increase in average temps).

I will let others look at Spencer's satellite data as you suggest. Bob Tisdale has also presented many analyses, over a number of years, not limited to satellite data, apparently showing any global warming has been by steps due to El Niños, as you say.

For myself, I am no longer impressed by ANY "global temperature" data (satellite or surface data) that purportedly shows any long-term global warming. When I performed my November 2010 Venus/Earth comparison (of temperature vs. pressure), I used the Standard Atmosphere model of the troposphere, which has been essentially unchanged for a century or more (I originally used the 1962 version, then the latest, 1976, version, with no change in the comparison). I used 1991 data for Venus (and a correspondent much later sent me Venus data from 1979-81, which also made no difference in the comparison). The precise fit between the century old Standard Atmosphere and the Venus data in 1991 tells me, and I believe any competent researcher, that there has been no global warming since the development of the Standard Atmosphere model (which, of course, no one who believes in any of the modern "global temperature" records wants to hear, much less confront as truth-seeking, real scientists--it will take real, thoughtful work, and a relinquishing of current consensus climate theory, to do so.)

Thanks for your response Harry. I agree with your sentiments that the Venus/Earth comparison disproves the "Greenhouse effect" and that you don't want to water down this statement/message by further speculation.

But as an engineer, I want answers. That's the way I'm programmed! My speculation is that the hydrostatic condition and Ideal Gas Law returns average temperatures to their, let's call it, neutral values. If historic data is correct, average temperatures have varied +/- 5 degC over recorded history. That to me proves the above but also shows there are temperature variations created by "forcings". We see temp changes by the hour, the season, etc so, in explaining to non-technical people what is happening, I would like to understand these forcings. I respect your intellect and knowledge and would like your speculation, even if it is just between you and me. If you prefer, you can write to me at chris.carter@rocla.com.au. I would also like to email you a document I wrote which includes your Venus/Earth comparison.

I appreciate where you and many "interested" observers are coming from in wanting to know more about the "climate", but I do not count myself one of you--I am struggling to find my way in an insanely divided intellectual world that does not want to hear about, much less properly confront and accept, my truly great discoveries (which are quite apart from any recognized modern field of study, although they affect all of the latter). In short, I am not spending my time looking for the answers you are seeking. I have repeated numerous times that I am not a climate scientist, just a competent physicist (and much more, a Discoverer in the tradition of great Discoverers, but again, no one wants to hear that).

At present, I can only answer you by commenting on the information you included in your latest comment: The temp changes you refer to are not GLOBAL changes, so people need to keep that straight; day vs night and summer vs winter are NOT global phenomena (they are hemispherical) and do not change the global mean temperature. Their particular "forcings" are simply the presence vs the absence of sunlight (day vs night) and tilt of the north vs the south hemisphere towards the Sun (summer vs winter in the northern hemisphere). The maintaining of the vertical temperature lapse rate structure is accomplished in a much shorter time period than between day and night (and obviously much shorter than seasonal variation), on the order of two or three hours at most (note that the warmest part of the day typically occurs 2 to 3 hours after noon, and I regard even that interval far longer than the "maintenance time" of the lapse rate structure. I have seen a comparison of the vertical temperature structure between day and night at one or two locations, and they show the vertical temperature structure is precisely the same day and night, except at the lowest 1 km or so of altitude, where there are often temperature inversions overnight (which are then wiped out within a few hours at most in the morning). So I speculate that molecular collisions (the hydrostatic condition is a PRESSURE condition, fundamentally enabled by such collisions, which means heat conduction predominates, not macroscopic convection which would be destabilizing of the structure, nor radiation which is the delusion of climate scientists, because the "measured" radiations are DUE to the temperature structure, not the CAUSE of it as they believe) maintain the vertical temperature structure on a timescale of minutes, say 10 minutes order of magnitude (i.e., between 1 minute and 100 minutes, over the entire height of the troposphere).

I also doubt your statement that average GLOBAL temperature (again, that caveat) has varied by anywhere near as much as 5°C historically. I don't have a graph on hand, but what I have seen in the past is a variation of only +/- 0.5°C, over the past 10,000 years.

Just for clarification, the temperature variation of +/- 5 degC I quoted was based on a temp vs time graph by researcher C.R. Scotese spanning the last 600 million years, showing large dips in temperature during Ice Ages. Interestingly, he notes average global temps were essentially unchanged between Ice Ages. I have also read some of your articles discussing the evidence of “Earth’s re-design” in the last 20,000 years, which is very convincing. Do you believe there is no validity to any “data” beyond the last 20,000 years because of this re-design?

Anyway, this is rather besides the main point regarding the atmospheric mechanism in play …. hydrostatic control. I understand your comments about conduction, not convection or radiation, controlling atmospheric temps and the vertical temperature structure being maintained on a timescale more like minutes. Do you have any thoughts as to why the 0.3 degC jump in average global tropospheric temps due to the 1998 El Nino has not returned to “neutral”? The satellite temperature data appears to be robust.

Also, I unsuccessfully tried to examine the pressure / temperature data reported from the Venus Express mission (European Space Agency) in 2005. Have you examined the data from this mission? It was reassuring when you stated that a “correspondent much later sent me Venus data from 1979-81” which confirmed your analysis.

1) Yes, I doubt all modern "data" from before the re-formation of the Earth's surface which I uncovered in my research. Such data is interpreted in terms (especially of when things occurred) of prevailing theories, which my findings show are all fundamentally false (simply because the main features of the Earth are the result of deliberate design, less than 20,000 years ago, not evolution by undirected physical processes, acting over hundreds of millions of years--and evidence of design is readily observed at all levels of classification of living things on Earth, especially in the presence of so-called "co-evolution", as well as in the non-living world as my research has shown). All of the earth and life sciences need to be rethought, from the fundamental assumptions on up through all the layers of misdirected speculation (now wrongly thought to be fact) they have accrued, basically since Darwin.

2) No, I don't know why there should have been a jump in global mean temperature due to the 1998 El Niño--basically, I don't feel any need to accept it as real, nor, more generally, do I see any reason, based upon good physics, to accept that ocean temperature oscillations should affect the global mean surface temperature (which, again, is quite apparently stabilized on a timescale of minutes, or tens of minutes--not over the months of an El Niño, much less over multiple decades of such ocean cycles). Again, here is the definitive evidence, in my opinion: The surface of Earth is 71% ocean, while that of Venus is all solid crust, yet that difference has no effect upon the Venus/Earth temperature ratio; if the very presence of a planetary ocean has no effect upon global mean surface temperature, why should the temperature oscillations within that ocean have any such effect? I take my confirmation of the unvarying Standard Atmosphere as the definitive evidence--that there has been no real global warming at all--that everyone needs to accept.

3) No, I have not seen any Venus data more recent than the 1991 data I originally found on the internet, where it was presented as representative of the Venus atmosphere; I accepted it as such, and continue to accept it due to its precise alignment with the Standard Atmosphere. When you have data (from both 1979-81 and 1991) that so precisely indicates a very simple physics behind the atmospheres of two such dissimilar atmospheres (and planetary surfaces) as Earth and Venus, if you are a competent physicist you have to consider that data, that simple physics, and above all that precise agreement of two greatly dissimilar planets, as definitive. All of the criticisms I have received of my position amount to no more than the prejudiced dismissal that "it's a coincidence" (which, it should be kept in mind, is the same empty complaint that has kept the false paradigm of undirected evolution alive and in charge, in all of physical science, for a century and a half).

So, unless or until a real, physical cause and effect relationship should be established between ocean temperature oscillations and the actual (not the supposedly measured) global mean temperature, and the unquestioned establishment of the actual global mean temperature profile of Venus's troposphere (over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures), neither I nor anyone else can help you with your good questions.